About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
with their financial affairs, the v.a. sends their name to the f.b.i. and they go on a nics list. and all of a sudden that takes away their second amendment right to own a gun. and it says that be in that lives in that house -- so it could be a spouse, it could be a child, it could be an adult child, for that fact -- also cannot own a firearm because the -- the -- the ruling says there can't be a firearm in th the -- in the -- in the residence. clearly, an appropriate determination if a veteran or any other american is found to be a harm to themselves or has a -- a mental disability, that we would all agree should disqualify them from gun ownership. now, let me say for the purposes of my colleagues and for the american people, this is not the standard that we currently apply at the veterans administration. we look at a veteran who's served his country and we say, you can't balance your checkbook so we're going to assign a fiduciary to you to balance your checkbook. you can't own a firearm. think about this. the fiduciary may be the spouse and all of a sudden that name goes to the nics list. why? beca
adjudicated mentally ill by the state of virginia. but those records were never transmitted to the f.b.i. to be included in a background check. and we know that the shooter in tucson fail a drug test -- failed a drug test, a disqualifying fact for somebody to be able to legally purchase firearms given a background check, but that information was never transmitted to the f.b.i., and so the few son shooter was not -- and so the tucson shooter was not prevented from buying weapons, even though he should have been disqualified if the background check system had been working the way it should. i believe the most appropriate response to the recent mass shootings tshootings is to maket our current laws involving mental illness, drug use, mental health adjudications are enforced more aggressively and more efficiently. but, at the same time, while we're trying to find a solution to these problems and not just engage in meaningless symbolism, we should not be making it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional rights under the second amendment. we can and we should embrace r
the d.h.s. or f.b.i. this bill already contains several levels of strong protections to n sure it improves cybersecurity without compromising our important civil liberties. but this bill will add a significant new privacy protection to that existing structure. again, madam chair, you can see the level of effort that we are doing here to protect privacy and civil liberties and still have a workable bill. with states like china, russia, iran, and north korea from getting into your networks and stealing your property. we have yet to find a single u.s. company that opposes this bill. in fact, we have the enthusiastic support of nearly every sector of the economy. because they are under assault from foreign cyberattacks and they need our help. and they need it now. companies and industry groups from across the country, including intel, the chipmaker, i.b.m., the internet security alliance, u.s. chamber of commerce, business round table, tech america, technet, companies of the silicon valley. u.s. telecom, nuclear energy institute, national association of manufacturers just to name a
response? >> i think that the response in both state, federal and local as well as our f.b.i. involvement is certainly adequate and i hope that they will be able to ascertain who perpetrated this. as far as i can tell, they are doing everything's that is needed to be done. >> is there an indication there is a foreign-involved -- >> i do not know. >> what are the sticking points you had to resolve? how difficult was it to resolve them and the 2007 bill fell apart over amnesty and future flow. how is this different? >> first, we pretty much resolved the major issues about a week and a half ago, i guess this past friday, agriculture finally came together and that was the last major sticking point. obviously when business and labor got on the phone good friday evening and agreed on a piece of paper that we had sent them, that was a big major change, too. the answers to both of the questions that we have business and labor on board. that was not true in 2007. in fact, labor was actively trying to scuttle the bill. and john, correct me if i'm wrong, not only are business and labor on board and
that the f.b.i. maintains, depends on the states sending information to the f.b.i. that they could use to screen out gun buyers. as a matter of fact, the shooter at the virginia tech had been adjudicated mentally ill by the state of virginia, but that information was never forwarded to the f.b.i. to be used on a background check. so he could therefore purchase weapons without a hit occurring on the nics background check system. after 2008, we passed legislation encourage the states, trying to incentivize them to send the information to the f.b.i. so that wouldn't happen again. and we know from the general accountability of course, the g.a.o., that the report of compliance with that law is dismal indeed. many states just simply haven't done it. i believe there are things we can do to further incentivize the states to send that information so that the background check system maintained by the f.b.i. actually works to preclude shooters like the virginia tech shooter from legally buying weapons because there would be a hit on the background check system, and he would be stopped from that s
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)